Though Round 1 is only for acceptance, I'd like to give few extra definitions for Sound.

Sound Noun1. Vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.[1]2. Sound produced by continuous and regular vibrations, as opposed to noise.[1]

3. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.[2]

Verb1. Emit or cause to emit sound.[1]2. Convey a specified impression when heard.[1]

I would like to thank Krazzy_Player (referred hereafter as "Con" or "my opponent") for accepting this debate!

DefinitionsThis debate obviously relies heavily on the definition of "sound." That being said, the definition of sound as "The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium."(1) is more in keeping with the original definition I explained earlier. However, I am not much concerned about the exact definition of the word "sound." Rather, I believe thatany definition of "sound" will rely heavily upon our inner sensations to understand it.

That being said, I think we should stick with the original definition of "sound" I provided, and which Con agreed upon by accepting this debate. I am not, however, hostile towards any arguments Con wishes to give in favor of his definition of the word "sound". If Con wishes to present arguments for that particular definition of the word "sound" I will reply to them and take them into consideration, but I do not think that they should be weighed as heavily in voting, and he should have that BoP, in keeping with the original context of the debate.

TreesNow this might come as a surprise to some, but I shall first turn towards what atree is.

Now, when you read the definition of the tree above, you probably had a visual image of a tree.

Perhaps you imagined a shape, or perhaps you remembered when you were a child and climbed in a tree.

In any circumstance, in understanding what a "tree" is, you have not actually understood what a tree is at all.

Rather, you have asubjective experience of what a tree is; a sensation or mental phenomena of what a tree is.

That being said, in reality, "trees" do not have any color (2), do not feel hard, do not taste woody, do not have any way they "look" like. These are all inherentlyinternal mental constructs which exist only in our minds.

Thus, a tree, as it exists in reality, has absolutely no qualities of which we perceive with our senses. There is no "look" to a tree, no "smell" to a tree, no "feeling" or "size" of a tree. It just exists, out there in the dark world, utterly imperceptible to us.

Now you may be wondering: "Ok, sure, but that's pointless. We're talking about a tree in reality, it's still out there."

To which I answer: "How do you know?"

If my opponent wishes us to believe that a tree exists in reality, he must provide us with a definition ofwhat a tree is (a difficult task, considering what a treereally is, is imperceptible) and must give arguments for why such a thing even exists in the first place! The existence of something which is utterly imperceptible to us, is very dubious.

That being said, I shall present other possibilities to the view that the tree really exists:

1. You are dreaming, or hallucinating, or an evil genius is simulating the world around you. 2. All that exists is mental phenomena, and we exist in the mental phenomena of a higher intelligence. Or... (which my opponent must prove) 3. Realityreally exists, and there really is a "tree" out there, even though we have no knowledge of it, and it is utterly imperceptible to us.

My opponent must demonstrate that the third option actually is the case.

Under the original definition of "sound"...Under the original definition of sound, it should be quite clear that when a tree falls, and no one hears it, there is no "sound" as such.

P1: We only experience mental phenomena. P2: We experience "sound" P3: .'., "sound" is a mental phenomena P4: IF there is no mind present, THEN there is no mental phenomena present P5: There is no mind present when a tree falls. P6: .'. There is no mental phenomena present when a tree falls. C: There is no "sound" present when a tree falls. (from 6 and 7)

P1 has been defended above. P2 also seems obvious, in keeping with the definition of "sound." P4 is also obviously true, since mental phenomena exists only inasmuch as the mind it exists in exists. P5 is assumed for the debate.

Thus, the conclusion follows: There is no "sound" present when a tree falls.

Under my opponent's definition of "sound"...Now, my opponent, obviously has a different definition of "sound." However, this definition also falls prey to the above arguments.

"Vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear"

What exactly is a vibration? We obviously know what a vibration is... we sense it all the time at rock concerts! Of course, we can know thatthis sort of vibration exists, but, as with the tree example, we do not really understand what avibration is out there in reality, if such a thing even exists. So if we assume that the vibration is a mental phenomena, then the syllogistic argument above disarms it. If we assume that it is something physical, then it is utterly unknowable to us, and its existence is very dubious.

The second definition my opponent presents is rather useless, since it references the word it attempts to define.

The third definition, "Transmitted vibrations of any frequency" also can be dealt with as above.

A horned argumentI should now like to present a horned argument!

P1: EITHER "sound" is non-mental phenomena, OR it is mental phenomena. P2: IF "sound" is non-mental, then it is utterly unknowable to us, since we only know mental phenomena, and something utterly unknowable to us is dubious, and should not be assumed as existing. P3: IF "sound" is mental phenomena, THEN the syllogistic argument above shows it does not exist when a tree falls. C: Therefore, in the first case, my opponent has the BoP, since we automatically assume something utterly unknowable to us does not exist, and should remain unconvinced until given sufficient proof. In the second case, "sound" clearly is not present when a tree falls.

A final argument against realism...My final argument against the existence of a real world would be the interaction problem. Minds, as immaterial things, cannot interact with material things, if we assume there is a material (or physical) realm of existence. Minds are non-material things, because they have different modanic properties than anything material. Conceivability entails metaphysical possibility. So while it'snot metaphysically possible for my mind to not exist as I think this thought, itis metaphysically possible for matter to not exist as I think this thought. Following Leibniz's law (3), the mind cannot be matter.

But if this were the case, it could not interact with the material world. Something which is of a completely different nature cannot interact with something else. A mind couldn't interact with my brain if they are separate things. But obviously, they can, and they do.

Since this debate really isn't about the mind/body problem, I just wanted to touch upon it briefly to cast even more doubt upon the already-dubious physical realm. This argument is not meant to be an essential part of this debate, it's only a cherry on top.

In conclusionMy opponent seems to be in a difficult situation. Under his definition of "sound" the existence of reality, as such, is very dubious. Something utterly imperceptible to us,mustbe proven to be the case. Else, we should not assume it even exists.

On the other hand, if my opponent admits, that sound, as for the purpose of this debate, is entirely a mental phenonema, then sound is not present when a tree falls.

So my opponent must demonstrate the existence of an utterly imperceptible physical reality, or assume "sound" is inherently mental, and dispute my arguments.

DefinitionsI'd like to go on with all the definitions stated above including my opponent's. As for as the source provided by Pro, it includes many definitions for the word "Sound" which I accept. However, I deny accepting the sole definition of "Sound" provided by Pro. A definition is one which is widely accepted and also it is a statement of the exact meaning of the word.....[1] [2]

I accepted the debate and provided the widely accepted definitions of "Sound" and prevented the debate structure being "bias" which my opponent knowingly or unknowingly constructed this debate.

TreesIt appears as though Pro is being over smart and add a high level of confusion among the readers. However coming to the point, I accept the first three statements of Pro with no objection but not the fourth. My opponent states,

In any circumstance, in understanding what a "tree" is, you have not actually understood what a tree is at all.Pro did not specify for "whom" he is addressing this statement, this may be true for a minimal percentage of people who is not normal. For example:A lunatic or people whose brain functioning is not normal. However, people with minimal knowledge and who is normal including children aged 2 may be below perfectly understands what a tree is. [3] Yes, I agree I have subjective experience of what a tree is.

That being said, in reality, "trees" do not have any color (2), do not feel hard, do not taste woody, do not have any way they "look" like. These are all inherentlyinternal mental constructs which exist only in our minds.

Thus, a tree, as it exists in reality, has absolutely no qualities of which we perceive with our senses. There is no "look" to a tree, no "smell" to a tree, no "feeling" or "size" of a tree. It just exists, out there in the dark world, utterly imperceptible to us.

Now you may be wondering: "Ok, sure, but that's pointless. We're talking about a tree in reality, it's still out there."

To which I answer: "How do you know?"

As for the source of Pro,numbered 2 is broken. I think Pro is again adding confusion among the readers, As for as best of my knowledge only one world exists and that is real. Earth exists and it is real. On Earth, Trees grow and it is widely accepted. Thus in reality,Trees have color, feels hard, have taste, by experience of billions of living beings on this planet they look alike i.e.. They look like trees. Internal mental constructs may carry many meaning and purpose, Other than imagination the vision,senses etc are very much essential for human beings to exist and it is real. The human brain has its purpose and helps human beings exist in this world. Thus tree exists and even its properties.

Many people including me with common knowledge know that "Tree" exists because we have seen and experience "Tree" and its qualities. You cannot just say this world is imperceptible and "Tree" is imperceptible just because you are living in a different world which common people including me do not know.

Next, My opponent presents the other possibilities which I'm going to answer1. No I'm not dreaming as I'm presently typing in this debate and never heard of an evil genius stimulating the world around me and I wish to talk about reality not some unfounded, unheard, illogical assumptions.

2. Pretty much same as above.

3. I've answered already above that "Tree" is not imperceptible.

Next,Pro states "Problems and conclusion" regarding his own definition of"Sound" which I already disagreed regarding his sole definition of "Sound". I'm using widely accepted definitions for refuting.

P1: When a tree falls,it hits the groundP2: It creates vibrationC: From P1 and P2, there is sound

As simple as that, If no human is present in the forest at the time to hear the "tree fall" doesn't mean we cannot assume there are no animals nor birds nor insects nor any bacteria which do not have the impact of the tree fall. Monkey's may run away, Birds may fly away, Insects may die because of the tree fall. Even if there is no one around to hear it or measure the frequency of "Sound" of the tree fall. Sound still occur and definitely exist due to the vibrations caused at least for that minimum period of time of "impact".

Moving on, Next my Pro states about definitions provided by me which I think Pro has some disputes regarding the word Vibration. Vibration can be defined as "the act of vibrating", "the condition of being vibrated", In Physics it is stated as, "A rapid linear motion of a particle or of an elastic solid about an equilibrium position".It just cannot be considered as mental phenomena because it exists in reality and as stated earlier for tree most human being experienced it. Therefore it is Syllogistic. It is important in this case because Vibration is produce when the event of tree fall occurs.

Next Pro states his horned argument for which I'll state my own

P1:"Sound" is a part of senses and it does require proper functioning of human or animal brain and ears.P2:In forest apart from the tree fall there are many other types of sound produced. For example: Forest fire, chirping of birds, sounds produced by insects.C: Just because no human is present in the forest, We cannot just discard that all the above examples as not sound. Therefore "Sound" exists even if no human is present.

Regarding Pros final argument against realism

Earth is real and so is the World as people live in this world, may be few exceptional cases may have interaction problem but most don't as they communicate with their fellow human beings and with the help of technology to any part of the World. Minds may be immaterial things but not the human brain and brain is known to detect senses. "Sound" and "Vibration" is real as we feel its existence and in this case, In the event of tree fall in the forest, Sound is produced and did exist even if there is no human present during the event. [4]

Contentions

If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one to hear it, it does make a sound.[5] [6]1. Impact on other living creaturesI've explained earlier in my rebuttals but once again, Just because no human is present it doesn't mean we cannot assume there are no animals nor birds nor insects nor any bacteria present in the event of tree fall in the forest which carries zero impact among these creatures. Thus there is "Sound".

2. Vibrations are producedIn the event of tree fall in the forest, "Vibrations" are produced as we can know this as any falling item produces vibration and thus "Sound" exists.

3. Many other types of "Sound" exists in forest.As stated earlier, it is common knowledge that in forest there are other types of "sound" such as chirping of birds, sounds produced by various animals, sounds of forest fire etc just because no human is present to experience that kinds of sound doesn't mean we cannot count that as "sound".Therefore sound exists.

4."Sound" is realMy opponent seems to have lot of confusion between "Real" world and "Dream" world (non existing world), I'm arguing for the real world thus as "sound" is experienced and felt by most human beings we can in no doubt say,"Sound" is real

IntroductionTo begin with, I'd like to note that under the original definition of the word "sound" my opponent has seemingly conceded. He does not dispute the arguments under the original definition, and thus, they remain. I would also like to note that this debate is primarily about that particular definition of the word "sound." Thus, the greater half of this debate has been conceded.

You will also recall that my opponent has graciously provided other definitions of the word "sound." As I have stated, these definitions rely upon the premise that there is a mind-independant physical reality, and that "sound," defined as such, is simply another part of this. In this way, I can agree with my opponent. If it is the case that there is indeed a mind-independant physical reality, and "sound" is just another part of that, then "sounds" occur regardless of whether or not we perceive them.

Unfortunately, my opponent either dismisses or misunderstands my arguments against a mind-independant physical reality. Furthermore, his arguments in favor of such a thing are fallacious.

DefinitionsI believe that the instigator should be able to define terms and rules however he so chooses. Unfortunately, my opponent has afforded me such a luxury, and has insisted that other definitions are of equal importance. I do not wish to get into a debate about semantics, so I shall leave this issue up to the voters. If the instigator defines terms and rules a certain way, can the accepting opponent correct him? You decide.

The giving tree...still imperceptiblePassing over my opponent's opening remarks which unjustly label my arguments as "over smart" and "add[ing] a high level of confusion among the readers," it becomes clear that my opponent simply does not understand the arguments I have presented.

The point is that we only experience mental phenomena. Physical trees, are not mental phenomena. Thus, we do not experience physical trees.

Of course, there still is a sense in which we experience "trees." However, the trees we experience in our mind, only exist there, and do not exist in physical reality.

"Thus in reality,Trees have color, feels hard, have taste, by experience of billions of living beings on this planet they look alike i.e.. They look like trees" -Con

My opponent simply illustrates my point further. In the mental construct, trees have color, feel hard, have taste, are experienced, look like trees, etc. But note, that each of these factors is an internal mental phenomena.

"Internal mental constructs may carry many meaning and purpose" -Con

This is interesting. How can something internal, and of a mental nature, have anything in common with something physical and non-mental? They are of a different nature, and cannot be compared. In fact, the physical world, being in its true nature, imperceptible, cannot be compared, precisely because it is imperceptible!

"Though the ideas themselves do not exist without the mind, yet there may be things like them whereof they are copies or resemblances, which things exist without the mind, in an unthinking substance. I answer, an idea can be like nothing but an idea" -George Berkeley (1)

"Many people including me with common knowledge know that "Tree" exists because we have seen and experience "Tree" and its qualities. You cannot just say this world is imperceptible and "Tree" is imperceptible just because you are living in a different world which common people including me do not know." -Con

Once again, I agree that there is a mental phenomena, which we call "tree." However, "tree" in the physical world, does not have any of these qualities which we normally think it does. The reason is that the physical world is not the mental world. We are never able to "get outside of" our minds, and experience the physical world as it truly is. We are limited to our senses, and experience only mental phenomena.

Notice that my opponent has not even defined what "tree" is in a physical sense.All he has done is define tree in a mental sense, thus proving my point. "Tree" in a physical sense, cannot be exactly the same as "tree" in a mental sense, precisely because they are entirely different things.

Until my opponent even explains what "physical matter" is, in a way which is not a mental explanation, we cannot even consider his arguments for the existence of it.

My opponent also dismisses my alternatives, by simply stating:

"No I'm not dreaming as I'm presently typing in this debate and never heard of an evil genius stimulating the world around me and I wish to talk about reality not some unfounded, unheard, illogical assumptions." -Con

However, this is a bare assertion fallacy. (2) Simply because my opponent claims it is the case, it does not follow that it is the case. Simply dismissing other possibilities is not even an argument in the first place.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." -Albert Einstein (3)

The interaction problemMy opponent seems to admit that the mind is mental, due to his partial admittance, and lack of disagreement.

However, he fails to understand what the interaction problem is. The interaction problem states, that if there are such thing as "mental" substances, and "physical" substances (a word which my opponent has not even defined yet, that is, not without appealing to mental constructs of it) then they cannot interact with one another. However, they obviously do! I can make choices. Drinking too much alcohol gets a person drunk, and affects their mental abilities.

This alone suffices to debunk my opponent's undefended, and undefined notion of a "physical" realm of reality. What even is "physical"? My opponent has not answered this question. Any idea of "physical" he has presented, is not "physical", and is in fact mental.

My opponent's contentionsMy opponent attempts to prove that if there are certain effects, then we can conclude that sound was really produced.

However, this is unfounded.

Either:

P1: IF there are certain effects, THEN sound was produced.P2: There are certain effects.C: Sound was produced.

Or:

P1: IF sound was produced, THEN there are certain effects.P2: There are certain effects.C: Sound was produced.

Neither of these arguments are sound. My opponent must show that the production of physical sound is the only possible thing that could cause these effects. Since he has not even provided a non-mental definition of the word "sound" we cannot accept the first argument.

I would agree with the truth of the premises in the second argument, but this argument is invalid. It affirms the consequent. (4)

Either way, neither of these two arguments are sound.

Straw-manMy opponent also straw-mans me. I am not claiming that there is no reality at all. I am claiming that there is no mind-independant physical reality, in the philosophical sense.

Have you ever "got outside of" your mind, and experienced the physical world, as it is, independantly of your mind? If not, why believe in something as cold and dubious as a physical world?

I would like to conclude with a quote, to demonstrate that the position I am arguing for is not as absurd as it may seem.

"There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." -Max Planck (5)

This falls in line with the panentheistic alternative I provided, and which my opponent simply dismissed.

I would like to ask the voters to vote fairly, and to vote for who they truly think argued better.

1. In the beginning of Round 2, Pro graciously seemed to have no disputes for the definitions for the word "sound". I've explained in Round 2, the reasons for providing extra definitions for "Sound". Now Pro is accusing me that I've seem to concede in this debate, however, it is totally untrue.

2. Next Pro states that," the greater half of this debate have been conceded" by me in-fact it is the other way around, which I leave readers and voters to decide.

3. Pro seems to have lot of confusion between "Real" world and "Dream" (non-existing) world.

"It becomes clear that my opponent simply does not understand the arguments I have presented". - Pro If I did not understood your statements then how was I able to refute.

The point is that we only experience mental phenomena. Physical trees, are not mental phenomena. Thus, we do not experience physical trees. - Pro

I've already said,"Trees exist in this physical world",Billions of living creatures experienced physical trees. It's just like saying, No living creatures ever saw a tree neither experienced, How can we believe that. "Trees" are the sole reason many living beings including human beings exist as trees supply oxygen. [1]

Of course, there still is a sense in which we experience "trees." However, the trees we experience in our mind, only exist there, and do not exist in physical reality. - Pro

Okay, If trees we experience in our mind and exists only in our mind, "How are we visually experiencing it and able to sense all its properties. Therefore "trees" are real and does exist in physical reality.

But note, that each of these factors is an internal mental phenomena.- Pro

Again, I'd like to say that,"Human Brain visualises any object and stores the information", Thus if we see again the same object, "Brain interprets the message and thus we are able to recognise certain object in macro seconds. This I do expect as "internal mental phenomena" and refuse to accept that it is only "internal mental phenomena" what we are experiencing it.

This is interesting. How can something internal, and of a mental nature, have anything in common with something physical and non-mental? They are of a different nature, and cannot be compared. In fact, the physical world, being in its true nature, imperceptible, cannot be compared, precisely because it is imperceptible! - Pro

I think I made it clear how internal and of a mental nature is related to physical nature in above statements.What we experience is stored in mind and when necessary we recall and take actions which are necessary. Though many experiences may just be imagination and disregarding all dreams, all physical nature we experience we store in mind. Every person whose brain functioning is normal, who experience physical nature and know what exactly it is. This is how I mean by Internal mind constructs.

Notice that my opponent has not even defined what "tree" is in a physical sense.- Pro

This shows serious lack of study of my arguments in previous round by Pro. I made it clear and even provide a source[3]. This I defined in physical sense not anything else.

All he has done is define tree in a mental sense, thus proving my point. "Tree" in a physical sense, cannot be exactly the same as "tree" in a mental sense, precisely because they are entirely different things. - Pro

All I explained and currently explaining is only in "Physical sense" what we experience in real not anything else.

However, this is a bare assertion fallacy. (2) Simply because my opponent claims it is the case, it does not follow that it is the case. Simply dismissing other possibilities is not even an argument in the first place. - Pro

The assertion of fallacy is being made by Pro not me. However, I'll leave this for readers and voters to decide.

The interaction problem

My opponent just says there is interaction problem but failed to explain what exactly the interaction problem is and finally states the solution for the interaction problem. However there are many kinds of interaction. For example:Biological interaction, Fundamental interaction, Human-Computer interaction etc. And as for as the best of my knowledge there are no interaction problem at all whatever problem Pro states, he finally came up with his own solution.[2] [3]

Next my opponent tries to refute my contentions, however he did not encountered any of them. He again came up with his own problems and conclusion which are definitely not mine as stated by me in Round 2.

My opponent must show that the production of physical sound is the only possible thing that could cause these effects. Since he has not even provided a non-mental definition of the word "sound" we cannot accept the first argument. - Pro

I've actually showed in Round 2, that in the event of tree fall in a forest, "vibrations" are produced and thus "Sound" is produced due to the fall. Even if there are no humans present at the event of tree fall we just cannot deny the assumption that there are other animals,birds,insects etc may be present during the tree fall which had zero impact due to the tree fall."Vibrations" are produced - This can be confirmed as any object falling on the ground is known to cause "vibration".

Straw-manMy opponent also straw-mans me. I am not claiming that there is no reality at all. I am claiming that there is no mind-independent physical reality, in the philosophical sense. - Pro Though this debate category itself is in Philosophy and Pro is trying hard to argue by the mixture of Philosophy, Science, Illusion, Physical reality, however it should be considered that,"Trees","Sound","Forest" are real and exist in "Physical" reality.[4]

Conclusion

My opponent clearly failed to present his BOP regarding his resolution,"If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one to hear it, it does not make a sound". Instead he took this debate off topic by denying the existence of "Physical" world thus denying the occurrence of "Sound" and physical presence of "Tree" itself. Neither he covered my arguments nor refuted them specifically. My contentions were ignored completely

On the other hand I refuted most of Pro's arguments and I believe, I satisfied my part of "BOP". Thus with the help of my contentions and refutations, I clearly disproved the resolution, If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one to hear it, it does not make a sound" and therefore clearly explained,"If a tree falls in a forest, and even if there are no humans to hear it or measure it, it does make a sound".

Always cite your sources, even if you're only borrowing a single sentence. This still applies when paraphrasing, instead of directly quoting. (again I'm not offended by it, merely feedback to strengthen your future arguments)

@Pro: A little curious why Descartes is not mentioned, when his words are pretty obviously copied. Regardless it's a pretty bad shifting goalpost fallacy, along the lines of 'Is the sky blue...? My opponent has not demonstrated that there is a sky.' Not trying to complain, merely giving some feedback.

@invisibledeity: Save for something truly awful like plagiarism, someone else's vote should not be mentioned within yours, in fact if you're position is influenced by comments you really need to refresh yourself on DDO standards ("Remember, the basis for decision should NOT include: Comments made by other members of the site"). As mentioned in the orientation, and how to vote guide: http://www.debate.org...

@kbub: Your RFD lacked conduct. Next time please don't fluff, even if it leaves your favored side only a tie.

@Cheetah: Those were R1 definitions, pro can't fail for setting an argument presumption. Also in future please be careful to include a reason for any area you're awarding points on, even if sources is incredibly obvious on this one.

I'm guilty of not reading the whole argument but from the opening statement by Mike it seems like he denies there is a real world of objects. If that is indeed the case then Zmikecuber can state that this object we label 'tree' is nothing but a mental projection of something that is not real - there's nothing out there, but if that is the case then stand under it while I cut it down and then we will ask him again if there is such an object in reality.

I really do believe that "sound" as we experience it is not present when we are not around. We only experience mental phenomena, not physical phenomena. So that part, yes.

As for the existence of a "physical reality" in the philosophical sense... I'm not sure. If it does exist, it's utterly unlike anything we know, and it completely imperceptible to us. Perhaps the world is a mental construct of a higher intelligence. I do believe in some sort of objective reality, just not necessarily the completely non-mental "physical" one... whatever that is. lol.

Reasons for voting decision: Great debate. Round 1: P3 shows sound being at least partially a mental phenomenon, but no Con rebut. P1 in horned argument assumes that, but Con does not rebut that. Definitions generally go to the instigator, and Con conceded the important ones. Pro has very strong and philosophically sound arguments in round 2. Con falls into the "trap" set by Pro concerning mental phenomenon, and does not adequately refute it. One argument that Con made that I thought was convincing though was the impact of the vibrations on non-humans. I believe Pro said "mind" and not human mind, but does not clarify in round 3, though Pro does a strong job of contradicting the other points. Con drops this important avenue in the last round, a huge mistake. Pro's analysis ultimately wins, that all interactions are of a mental sort, and therefore physical is unknown and syllogism follows. Con seems to be stuck on refuting the "evil genius" which is not central to Pro's arguments. Famous quotes are boring. Bad sour

Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument appealed to me more. The idea that there is a sound even if it goes unheard by me makes more sense than me not mentally experiencing it therefore it didn't actually make a sound. Con consistently made grammar and punctuation errors however, and so Pro gets points for that.

Reasons for voting decision: This was a CLOSE debate, but Pro's arguments were better. Con broke the rules, and redefined the words, so PRO gets the CONDUCT. PRO also has better S/G. Pro's arguments for the original definition were BETTER, and Con didn't understand his other arguments. WHITEFLAME has a good explanation of why!!! Pro's links were BROKEN though, so CON gets sources.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost me in his play on semantics, especially his attempts to obfuscate the term "Sound". I'm not into semantics and go by the scientific definition which exists, even when there are no intelligent detectors or ears to pick it up, it still rattles walls, loosens nuts and fruit from trees, thus it exists. It's exactly the same as "If a rock falls into a pond when nobody is present, do ripples exist?", because sound is the practically the same as those ripples (shockwaves) in the pond. I hate people who play Semantic mind games, reminds me of Creationist arguments.